Seven autonomous cars have driven more than 1,000 miles without human aid

A New
York Times report
has outlined the details of a secret Google project to truly
put the "auto" in automobile. The Mountainview,
California-based tech company has tested seven cars that have driven
without the aid of a human for 1,000 miles, and more than 140,000
miles with minimal human intervention.

The
project was created by Google engineer and co-inventor of Google's
Street View, Sebastian Thrun, director of the Stanford Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory. In 2005, Thrun led a team from the
university to win a $2 million Pentagon prize for designing the
Stanley robot car, which drove autonomously for more than 132 miles.

For
the current project, Google outfitted six Toyota Priuses and an Audi
TT with advanced mapping technology and artificial intelligence
software that can sense objects near the car and mimic human driver
decisions. A passenger has been present to make minor adjustments,
like when a bicyclist ran a red light during a recent test drive.

Google's
motivation for the project, its engineers say, is to make the roads
safer. "Robot drivers react faster than humans, have
360-degree perception and do not get distracted, sleepy or
intoxicated, the engineers argue," NYT noted.
Autonomous cars could double the capacity of our current roads by
allowing them to be driven closer together, and, because of the
decreased likelihood of a crash, could be made out of lighter
materials, translating to better fuel efficiency.

The
only reported crash, engineers said, was when one of the autonomous
cars was rear-ended while stopped at a red light. Otherwise, one of
the cars even drove itself down Lombard Street in San Francisco,
what NYT calls "one of the steepest and
curviest streets in the nation." The cars can be programmed with
different driving personalities -- "cautious" is more
defensive, while "aggressive" is, well, more aggressive.

Google
has 15 engineers working on the project, as well as at least a dozen
people with clean driving records hired to sit in the driver's seat
as a precautionary measure.

Self-piloted
autos are still years away from mass production, NYT notes,
because computers have to become much more stable and less likely to
crash, for one thing. Another obstacle beyond the technological
aspect is the law. “The technology is ahead of the law in many
areas,” Bernard Lu, a senior attorney for the California DMV
told NYT. “If you look at the vehicle code, there
are dozens of laws pertaining to the driver of a vehicle, and they
all presume to have a human being operating the vehicle.” Google
has argued that, because there is a human being present to override
any decisions of the automobiles, its experiments are legal. Lu
agreed.

But
there are those who believe that the technology could change society
as profoundly as the Internet has. Google has not revealed a clear
business plan for the new technology, but both Thrun and Google
co-founder Larry Page have a shared commitment to increase the
nation's highway safety and efficiency, sources say.

To counter - facial recognition has come a long way but is also easily fooled with a simple printed photograph (or 2 offsets for dual cameras)

Pedestrian accidents aren't just suicide runs. It could be anything from people trying to make a crosswalk as its changing, falling off a bike on the side of the road, being pulled by a dog, etc.

Maybe someday it would be more acceptable but its not as simple as getting the cars out there, it would be a massive infrastructure change within the travel system.

There are a million unprogrammable unaccountable scenarios that would require manual intervention.

A computer might not be able to distinguish a tree swaying from a branch falling and a reasonable rate of speed would not be one that left much room for waiting till it across the road. The AI might also not be able to tell if a telephone pole is going down, or if power wires are across the road.It has no prioritized sense of urgency when traveling to the hospital or family doctor for those in rural areas etc.

ABS/Traction control and similar systems detect when its too late. Antilock brakes detect sliding tires during decelleration, traction control detects power delivery greater to that of a given traction. Neither system detects a slide at cruising speed nor compensates for current or future conditions. By the time the system picks up on a problem you have already... LOST traction. If it was cruising at 60mph on an interstate for example and a patch of snow melted then refroze ahead you might see the ice but the car would not. Manual intervention would be what saved your life.

Also consider target markets - a vehicle complex enough to perform these duties with heavily invested AI as well as many additional sensors has a higher purchase/ maintenance cost. Roads with appropriate feedback are likely expensive and would greatly increase dpw overhead especially in smaller towns. Consider dirt roads and private roads which are not marked on a gps.

Don't get me wrong I think its an excellent idea, but I think as long as computing power does not equal that of the human brain we can not assume it can understand an infinite number of situations and interpret those with which it was not programmed for. In my lifetime? maybe the end. Till then its a smarter cruise control.